There is the whole question of volume regarding production. The Belgians were contracted for the barrels they produced. They did not churn out barrels, load them on boats and dump them off at the 1st American port. If they produced cheap barrels, it was because the buyers wanted them at that price. Buyers like Sears, SD&G, etc. Smaller makers like Baker, Lefever, etc would have been handling these barrels directly. I know they had blacksmiths and barrel makers employed who would have complained if cheap barrels showed up in their inventory.
From circa 1880, the English gun trade was in a slow decline. Does any one really believe that proof house test was done just because they were worried their guns might not pass? It was done to show that English barrels were the best. Good for them! A government agency that actually was concerned about jobs for their citizens. The foreign barrels are never identified even as to the country of origin. So the message is clear, buy English. I am told the Belgians responded with their own proof house test, which I am still attempting to find a copy of.
McKinley in an 1890 attempt to protect the American farmer drafted tariff legislation. It helped to nail the coffin on the English gun trade's exports to America. Within a little over 10 years they shrank to nothing. The other negative impact in England was many makers went out of business.
There was a negative impact in Belgium. The demand for greater and greater production lead to unsafe work conditions. The guild itself called for a strike. Conditions were so bad during one strike that neighbors often took in the children of guild members so the children would not starve.
The was no production line for damascus barrels as we understand the term. There was increased pressure by the owners to increase production and cut costs. One documented method of cutting the cost was to improperly bore the barrel. This left fragments of the chemise in the tube. These fragments would cause obstructions later in the hands of sportsman. The fact that we do not see this type of blow up happening today, leads me to believe those barrels were tossed or blown long ago. It certainly explains some of the bad press of the period.
We simply do not have enough records from Belgium during these years to understand every step properly. We do know that all tubes should have been proofed under Belgian law. The proof house kept some records private as they knew the British and other consulates were attempting to understand their export business. Later through flood and war, these records were destroyed. I have seen the pictures of long rows of barrels sitting on sand bags with strings running through a hole in the wall. Was there a way to side step this and remain within the law?
I have seen some Francotte's, Wilmart's, Lebeau, etc guns produced during this same time period that would give any maker a run for the money.
We have to remember we are talking about several different categories of Belgian production. The top of the line guns by top makers. The large Belgian houses who would put their name on the gun. The large Belgian houses who were sourcing barrels to American gun makers. Finally the Belgian makers who were making a quick buck, didn't mark anything and did not care about quality or safety. The last is normally referred to as a guild gun, but in the worst sense of the phrase.
Pete
